CHAN TIN YAU AND OTHERS v. TSANG KWOK KAY

CHAN TIN YAU AND OTHERS v. TSANG KWOK KAY

The application was refused because the defence failed to give prior notice or include the tape in trial bundles, permitting its use and further examination of DW1 at that stage would be procedurally unfair, and no implied reservation to further examine DW1 was established.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHAN TIN YAU AND OTHERS v. TSANG KWOK KAY
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; Defendant: Defence
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 September 2006
Case Number
HCA21228/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / During Trial — Application to Play Tape and to Further Examine Defence Witness (dw1) After Plaintiffs Closed Their Case
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
Admission of Evidence, Trial Bundles, Procedural Fairness, Cross Examination, Witness Examination
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Evidence Admission of Evidence Trial Bundles Procedural Fairness Cross Examination Witness Examination

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

Defence

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / During Trial — Application to Play Tape and to Further Examine Defence Witness (dw1) After Plaintiffs Closed Their Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence may play a tape disclosed in discovery but not included in trial bundles after the plaintiffs have closed their case
  2. 2 Whether allowing the defence to elicit further evidence from DW1 when the tape is played would be procedurally unfair because the plaintiffs were not cross-examined on the tape
  3. 3 Whether an intention to play a tape amounts to an implied reservation of the right to further examine a witness

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the defence failed to give prior notice or include the tape in trial bundles, permitting its use and further examination of DW1 at that stage would be procedurally unfair, and no implied reservation to further examine DW1 was established.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • Application to play the tape and to elicit further evidence from DW1 refused.